THE HOBBIT (2012/2013): News, Rumors, Pics Till Release

That's still stretching the story out over a third movie. My worry is that they'll lose the core story in all this new material. I mean, what else is there in the Appendices that could apply to The Hobbit? They've already added in material about the White Council taking on the Necromancer at Dol Guldur.

I mean, what else is there in the Appendices that could apply to The Hobbit? They've already added in material about the White Council taking on the Necromancer at Dol Guldur.

Click to expand...

If I'm not mistaken, the only relevant material comes from Appendix B, aka "The Tale of Years". It's a short timeline of events during the Second, Third and Fourth Age of Middle Earth. You can find it here and judge by yourself.

There's some additional material in the short story "Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age", but that's in the Silmarillion and as far as I know, NewLine doesn't hold the rights to it.

MarkMonitor, the internet brand protection company that handles the domain names for the Saul Zaentz Company in general and the Hobbit movies in particular, has made domain registrations in the last few days that could reveal potential titles for the third film (or the new second film I guess): The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug or The Hobbit: Riddles in the Dark.

Man, feels like King Kong all over again. You've got this cool, simple, and effective story, and Jackson is going to stretch it out into something MUCH longer and more bloated than it really needs to be.

Man, feels like King Kong all over again. You've got this cool, simple, and effective story, and Jackson is going to stretch it out into something MUCH longer and more bloated than it really needs to be.

Click to expand...

Although I do like the idea of 3 movies having him do what he did in Kong is a fear of mine.

As long as there is enough material to do three movies I don't have problem with it. But there sure better be a whole lot of added stuff, because I don't see The Hobbit having enough material to be the main driving story for three movies.

Well, if it's a bridging film like I hope it is, it'll probably be something along the lines of "Unfinished Tales" or "Lost Tales" or something similar, although I suspect Christopher Tolkien has the rights to those titles (if that's something someone can have).

Damn it. Between the studios greed and Peter Jackson's massive, narccissitic ego they are absolutely determined to ruin The Hobbit. Expanding The Hobbit to two movies was bad enough but three is complete overkill. Three movies for a 300-page book? Really? The appendix only adds another 125. Are the actors even under contract for a possible third movie? Because if they're not, it's clear this is a spur of the moment cash grab/egofest. I hope it doesn't effect shooting for the third season of Sherlock, something I'm even more interested in seeing than The Hobbit, especially after this nonsense.

Jackson's statement is completely ridiculous. That part about the story of Bilbo Baggins story remaning untold is false. If Jackson would just tell the story of THE HOBBIT, it would cover the full story of Bilbo Baggins. Bilbo was just an ordinary guy who went on one great, grand adventure. He returned home after a year and lived a normal life until we meet up with him again in the first LOTR's book. The Hobbit is Bilbo's story. He's the lead character, not meant to be one of many like in the Lord of the Rings trilogy. The events going on in Middle-Earth during the book were important but weren't meant to be like the War of the Ring.

If he had stuck with the earlier rumor (The Hobbit and a bridge movie) I think that would have been much better. But he's going with three movies and I'm betting he'll make them three hours each because he's in love with his overrated skills.

Look, I'm hoping I'm wrong about this. But I've seen what happens when Jackson's ego runs amok and it's called King Kong. He took a ninety-minute movie and made it a bloated, three-hour-plus "epic." What did Jackson add to it? A FORTY-FIVE-MINUTE voyage to Skull Island, the casting of Jack Black (he wanted to work with him and miscast him as a thoroughly unlikeable character) and a freaky love story between a woman and a friggin ape. The end result was a film that was both horseshit and forgettable. If Jackson hasn't learned anything from King Kong (and it looks like he hasn't), we might be treated to another bloated "epic." That means Jackson will go the way of Francis Ford Coppola, a once great filmmaker who lost his ability to make classic films because of his own insanity after the 70s.

I don't know what Peter Jackson has to "learn" from King Kong. It had extreme critical acclaim, was nominated for four Oscars, and was the 5th highest grossing film of the year. It wasn't very profitable domestically, but it made $550 million worldwide.

Kong may be illustrative of the risks involved in stretching The Hobbit to three instalments, though. Didn't PJ ask for more money and a longer running time with that one too? Some might say that it didn't do the movie any favours.

Personally, I think that Jackson, Walsh and Boyens probably know what they're doing with The Hobbit. It's long been hinted that this project is the "real story" to the novel's sanitised kid-friendly account, so it's easy to see how at least it could be stretched to two films. Not sure if the third will be he long-suspected "bridging" film or not, but either way I think we're looking at the insertion of depth and nuance moreso than filler. One of the video diaries has the actors singing a certain ditty from LOTR, so I think these films will borrow heavily from the mythology developed around the original story.

A big concern, though, will be whether the three films will manage to have their own distinct flavours as did the original trilogy. If they don't then audiences could be heartily sick of Bilbo Baggins by the end. But I think (or maybe would like to think ) that rather than this decision being Jackson's great folly, it will instead prove to be something of a coup de grâce. If nothing else, the fact that Bilbo is PJ's favourite Tolkien character is a positive sign.